Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC does not bar additional maintenance under the DV Act.

The petitioner-husband challenged the judgment dated 23 June 2026 of the 25th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, which reversed the JMFC’s order dated 25 November 2025 in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

The JMFC had allowed the wife’s application under Section 23 of the DV Act but declined to award separate maintenance because the wife and minor son were already receiving ₹7,000 and ₹3,000 per month respectively under an order dated 21 May 2018 passed under Section 125 CrPC.

In addition, the wife had received a lump-sum amount of ₹1,20,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pursuant to an order dated 2 February 2024.

The Appellate Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the minor son.

The husband’s admitted monthly salary was ₹83,904.

The High Court noted that, apart from the Section 125 CrPC payments, no continuing maintenance was being paid to the wife and son.

Whether the Appellate Court was justified in awarding monthly interim maintenance under Section 23 of the DV Act despite the wife and minor son already receiving maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the wife having received a lump-sum amount under Section 24 of the HMA.

Whether, in view of Suraj Parkash Singh v. Arti Devi, the Appellate Court ought to have directed the JMFC to decide the pending application under Section 12 of the DV Act instead of granting interim maintenance under Section 23.

Section 23 of the DV Act empowers the court to grant interim and ex parte relief, including interim monetary relief, during proceedings under the Act; Section 12 provides for the substantive application under the DV Act. Maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC and other financial reliefs must be considered, but they do not automatically bar an appropriate award under the DV Act where the claimant’s continuing financial needs remain unmet.

Relying on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nanday, (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Court reiterated that maintenance must be assessed according to the parties’ circumstances, the husband’s capacity to pay, and the status of the parties; approximately 25% of the husband’s net salary may constitute a just and proper benchmark for the wife’s maintenance, subject to the facts of the case.

The Court distinguished Suraj Parkash Singh v. Arti Devi because, in that case, the wife had not sought interim maintenance under Section 23 of the DV Act.

The High Court held that the ₹1,20,000 payment under Section 24 HMA was a lump-sum amount and did not constitute continuing monthly maintenance.

The only recurring payments were ₹7,000 to the wife and ₹3,000 to the minor son under Section 125 CrPC.

Applying the principle in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, the Court considered the husband’s monthly salary of ₹83,904 and found that the wife was entitled to at least one-fourth of that salary, in addition to maintenance for the minor child.

On that basis, the Appellate Court’s award of ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the son was not illegal or excessive.

The reliance on Suraj Parkash Singh was rejected because that decision concerned a case where no interim maintenance had been claimed; it therefore did not prevent the court from deciding the wife’s Section 23 application in the present case.

It held that the existing Section 125 CrPC payments and the one-time payment under Section 24 HMA did not justify denying continuing interim maintenance under Section 23 of the DV Act.

The award of ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the minor son was upheld.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.